People Say Houston's ugly but not cities like Chicago, NYC, etc? (Dallas: nice areas, money)

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Othello Is Here

I have been reading this for many pages.I have no dog in this fight but it see you dont want to accept alot that is widely accepted as standard thought.

Chicago is a beautiful city.Sure it has bad parts just like Houston but most people dont hang out near those bad areas where they will even see them.
I dont think Houston is 'ugly' ,its just there.Its not an inviting city that beckons people to love its aesthetics. Houstons lack of compactness and zoning does not lend well to helping the city look appealing.

Houstons traffic btw is ranked 11th in the nation.Its not good for all the convenience of feeder roads and its spoke system you say are supposed to be good.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/m...t-traffic.html

How would it rank without the feeder roads and spoke system?

My guess is we would be top three for worst.

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

So this is your idea of "not" ugly?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ch...297982!6m1!1e1

And I am aware there are touristy/showy parts of town. Just like they exist in Houston.

This just Chicago.Not touristy.Show something as nice in regular Houston
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ma...242142!6m1!1e1

[Othello Is Here]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

How would it rank without the feeder roads and spoke system?

My guess is we would be top three for worst.

yes but many other cities have less traffic and dont have that system

[Spade]

Originally Posted by stoneclaw

So this is your idea of "not" ugly?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ch...297982!6m1!1e1

And I am aware there are touristy/showy parts of town. Just like they exist in Houston.

Sure I do. But even the non touristy parts of Chicago aren't ugly.
Such as here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9085...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Especially from a more urban city perspective which Chicago is very much more than Houston. Not trying to say Houston is entirely ugly. It definitely isn't. But more of Chicago is more aesthetically pleasing compared to Houston to me (emphasis on this as not everyone may feel this way).

[Spade]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Every US city you list is in the top 10 cities of homeless.

The Top 10 U.S. Cities With High Homelessness Rates

Personally, I think the army of panhandlers in San Fransisco is way uglier than feeder roads in Houston.

At least in Houston, you won't be accosted by a store along the highway.

Now, maybe you lived in SF and acquired the gift of seeing them as objects, like bike racks, Which the locals are able to completely ignore. On my trips to SF, I've always been amazed by the number of panhandlers and the ability of residents to completely ignore them.

Nearly 7,000 People in San Francisco Live Without a Home | NBC Bay Area

Ok but that still doesn't make these cities not ugly and hardly anyone would say Houston is prettier than San Francisco.

[radiolibre99]

I think it's because Chicago has nearly a century of history ahead of Houston. I wouldn't even have consideref Houston breaking out of the ugly duckling mold until a decade ago. I called the city ugly back then. Theee comparisons are kind of unfair.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Spade

Ok but that still doesn't make these cities not ugly and hardly anyone would say Houston is prettier than San Francisco.

SF wouldn't be much different than Houston without the hills, ocean and climate.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

I think it's because Chicago has nearly a century of history ahead of Houston. I wouldn't even have consideref Houston breaking out of the ugly duckling mold until a decade ago. I called the city ugly back then. Theee comparisons are kind of unfair.

Explain how this is unfair. This is not some kind of assessment in which handicaps are assigned based on extenuating circumstances relative to each city. We judge the aesthetics of Chicago and Houston as they presently exist. Based on your reasoning, might one assume that Paris and Houston are fairly even in aesthetics when one takes into account that Paris had a head start of a millennium or two?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Explain how this is unfair. This is not some kind of assessment in which handicaps are assigned based on extenuating circumstances relative to each city. We judge the aesthetics of Chicago and Houston as they presently exist. Based on your argument, might one assume that Paris and Houston are fairly even in aesthetics when one takes into account that Paris had a head start of a millennium or two?

I'd say much of Paris isn't pretty. If you walk through Paris, much of the time you are essentially in a man made canyon between unbroken rows of five story apartment buildings. You need to be on bigger roads like the Champs Elysees, by the river, at a park or in the arts section up above the rest of Paris to avoid those canyons.

The majority of Paris isn't alluring to the eye, but those aren't the spots you see on tv or in the tourist brochures.

Paris has lots of visually stunning areas, but they make up a small part of the city.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by Pine to Vine

Explain how this is unfair. This is not some kind of assessment in which handicaps are assigned based on extenuating circumstances relative to each city. We judge the aesthetics of Chicago and Houston as they presently exist. Based on your reasoning, might one assume that Paris and Houston are fairly even in aesthetics when one takes into account that Paris had a head start of a millennium or two?

Yes because ten years ago houston didn't give two diddlies about aesthetics but now has made a significant effort to improve its public spaces and increase development. So far I think it looks nice, 'not beautiful but Houston looks like a nice, new city and it cannot be compared to Chicago which has had decades upon decades to expand and develop. And also these comparisons are spurious as the criteria is so subjective and biased in favor of what most urbanists hold dear. Houston's improvements don't be good enough because it's development still has a very practical nature to it. It's still mixed used development, strip malls and all the stuff urbanists despise. I just happen to think it looks nice.